Article View: sci.space.shuttle
Article #3786Re: Shuttle Bashing
From: Mark E. Johnson
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:28
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:28
21 lines
1543 bytes
1543 bytes
> The main point I want to make is that you NEED the shuttle to build > the space station. My coworkers and I were discussing this yesterday (we're designing the Space Station solar arrays). Isn't the shuttle the primary reason Space Station Freedom is being built and deployed in a relatively low orbit? That's what I always understood. And let me tell you, that is a *big* problem, in terms of an environment that has too much debris and is hostile (corrosive) to organic materials--such as composites and most lubricants. Granted, we didn't know all of this until LDEF was retrieved. What would it have taken (too late now) to build Freedom in a higher orbit? More shuttle flights, at less cargo per flight? Or another launch vehicle altogether, like Shuttle/C or NLS? What ever happened to Shuttle/C? When I worked for Rockwell five years ago, that sounded like a viable alternative. _____________________________________________________________________________ -Mark Johnson mjohnson@jedi.decnet.lockheed.com
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<mjohnson-211192082742@129.197.97.65>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!iscnvx!newsReferences:
<1992Nov19.155527.7807@cbfsb.cb.att.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!iscnvx!news From: mjohnson@jedi.decnet.lockheed.com (Mark E. Johnson) Subject: Re: Shuttle Bashing Message-ID: <mjohnson-211192082742@129.197.97.65> Followup-To: sci.space.shuttle Sender: news@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (News) Organization: Lockheed, USC, and UT-Austin References: <1992Nov19.155527.7807@cbfsb.cb.att.com> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 16:28:12 GMT Lines: 21